ÿWPC7  °·PÝSèöó„6Ð}ÀT´˜7 Á+gé¡Ö8³¬‹ Û…9„D óÒêöÑiþžÆûˆa»ŒËÚA¤05dñàš«„¦Oh¸ÄF ‹BÊÁf‘ÕÚ#VnùBÉ:q%×yi3ÚŽfÃ`Â=?q,¯ï>vêž»3ͧ½ÎÑÖisª­‡uâ4C½#´I¶Ò(L Û™ÞkêX Kµaw\¬HSGàø¨!5Ã|£0ÂyºuÞ£˜¸ÜÖ ywÍcÕ'œ]5.eŽB$I$¡v7e]ËÃ`Ò °  V0ÖúU£ÇÞÚÌWXàYLä ïP·nêuú‘€ÇÇbÙHˆq+›5ž8ªcš3b½÷!DÎïöDÃC-ÏÕ›Ù¶Ä̺ÛC*jŸÔ7pJ½‘‡Öb‹ñ×x6FX3j472MXXXÔAlthough€not€mentioned€by€Lyttle€in€his€testimony,€the€TBI€lab€reportÐ ° Ðshowed€the€following€additional€substances€were€present€in€the€blood€sample:Ïcocaine,€ð ðless€than€.1€UG/MLðð;€cocaethylene,€ð ðless€than€.1€UG/MLðð;Ïð ðbenzoylecgonine€(cocaine€metabolite)€1456€NG/ML.ðð€€At€a€jury„out€hearing,€theÐ €Ð  Ðtrial€court€excluded€from€Lyttleððs€proposed€testimony€evidence€of€the€cocaine€andÏcocaine„related€substances., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€XÀXXXÔÔ€îWîXXÀÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€)óîîWÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€20,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôœô)óÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ‹ñ›ñ‹ññ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÔ€XÀXXXÔÓÓÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  Óò òÑ7€'XdìXXdð7ÑÑ  Ññ“ñœßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E± tt0"H°¨Órß›ñ“ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐAT€KNOXVILLEó óÐ ˆØ Ðò òMAY€1999€SESSIONó óÐ `° ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà h àà À àà  à)Ð Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òAppelleeó ó,à h àà À àà  à)ò ò€€€€€€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9707„CR„00270ó óÐ ¢ò  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òvsó ó.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òBlount€Countyó óÐ tÄ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òALBERT€L.€NORTON,ó óà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òHon.€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€Judgeó óÐ F– Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àó óà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð 2‚ Ðà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellantó ó.à h àà À àà  à)ò ò€€€€€€(DUI€2nd€Offense)ó óÐ h Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌÌÌò òFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð œì ÐÌGEORGE€H.€WATERSà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€PAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ tÄ Ðó óAsst.€Public€Defenderò òà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ó óAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÐ `° Ðó ó419€High€StreetÐ Lœ ÐMaryville,€TN€37804à h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òERIK€W.€DAABó óÐ 2‚ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Criminal€Justice€DivisionÌà ` àà ¸ àà  à€€€€€à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ ê : Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òPHILIP€MORTONÐ œ#ì" Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ó óAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ˆ$Ø# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Blount€County€CourthouseÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€363€Court€StreetÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Maryville,€TN€37804ò òÐ @'"& ÐÌÌó óÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________ÌÌò òÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌó óÌÐ  Ê516S Ðà ` àà ¸ àÌÓ  ÓÓÓà @` àà @¸ àà @ àò òOPINIONó óÐ –æ ÐÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Albert€L.€Norton,€appeals€his€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñBlountñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€County€CircuitÏCourt€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñjury€convictionñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€of€second„offense€DUI,€a€class€A€misdemeanor.€€He€does€notÏchallenge€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñhis€jailñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€sentence€of€eleven€months,€29€days€at€90€percent,€to€be€probatedÏafter€serving€90€days,€a€$2,500€fine,€and€a€two„year€license€revocation.€€Rather,€heÏchallenges€his€conviction€by€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÒ°Òà ` àà ¸ àà  à1.€€The€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€¼à ` àà ¸ àconviction.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  à2.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€evidence€of€the€¼à ` àà ¸ àdefendantððs€blood€test€result€despite€the€failure€to€establish€a€¼à ` àà ¸ àproper€chain€of€custody€of€the€blood€sample.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  à3.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€evidence€of€drugs€¼à ` àà ¸ àbeing€present€in€the€defendantððs€blood€sample.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  à4.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€testimony€that€the€¼à ` àà ¸ àdefendant€failed€to€pass€a€horizontal€gaze€nystagmus€field€¼à ` àà ¸ àsobriety€test.ÌÒ°ÒAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€applicable€law,€weÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àSergeant€Mark€Taylor€of€the€Maryville€Police€Department€arrested€theÏdefendant€for€DUI€on€March€7,€1995,€after€watching€the€defendant€swerve€his€carÏacross€the€street€centerline€on€two€or€three€occasions€and€make€a€wide€left€turnÏñ‹ñœñ‹ñduringñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€which€he€appeared€to€strike€a€curb.€Taylor€stopped€the€defendant,€who€hadÏblood„shot€eyes,€smelled€of€alcohol,€fumbled€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñwith€hisñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€wallet€when€trying€to€extractÏhis€drivers€license,€and€staggered€upon€getting€out€of€the€car.€€€The€defendant€toldÏTaylor€he€had€a€couple€of€beers€earlier€in€the€day€and€that€he€was€on€three€typesÏof€medication,€including€a€pain€medicine€and€a€muscle€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñrelaxant.€ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€TaylorÏadministered€three€field€sobriety€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñtestsñ‹ñ›œñ‹ñ€„„ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€the€horizontal€gaze€nystagmus€(HGN)€test,Ïthe€one„leg€stand,€and€the€walk€and€turn€test.€€After€explaining€that€the€HGN€testÐ ¾95; Ðinvolved€an€assessment€of€the€effects€of€intoxicants€on€the€muscles€in€the€eyes,ÏTaylor€testified€that€the€defendant€tested€ð ðpositiveðð€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñonñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€all€six€ð ðcluesðð€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñfor€whichñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€theÏtesting€officer€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñlooks.ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€€On€the€one„leg€stand,€the€defendant€dropped€his€foot€a€fewÏtimes€while€counting€and€finally€put€his€foot€down€and€said€he€could€not€finish€theÏñ‹ñœñ‹ñtest.€ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€During€the€walk€and€turn€test,€he€stepped€off€the€line€twice,€used€his€arms€toÏkeep€his€balance,€missed€connecting€heel€to€toe€three€times,€and€incorrectlyÏexecuted€the€turn.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àMichael€J.€Lyttle,€a€forensic€scientist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation€(TBI),€analyzed€the€defendantððs€blood€sample€for€the€presence€ofÏñ‹ñœñ‹ñdrugs.ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ€Heñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€found€the€presence€of€1.1€micrograms€per€milliliter€of€carisoprodol,€aÏmuscle€relaxant,€and€testified€that€the€therapeutic€range׃ ×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€for€carisoprodol€is€ten€toÐ 0€ Ð40€micrograms€per€milliliter.€€He€found€the€presence€of€9.2€micrograms€per€milliliterÏof€meprobamate,€which€is€a€metabolite€of€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñcarisoprodol.€€Theñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€therapeutic€range€forÏmeprobamate€is€3.0€€to€26€micrograms€per€milliliter.€€He€found€the€presence€ofÏdihydrocodeinone,€a€narcotic€analgesic,€for€which€the€therapeutic€range€is€.002€toÏ.024€micrograms€per€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñmilliliter.€€Theñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€concentration€of€dihydrocodeinone€was€belowÏthe€level€of€.1€micrograms€per€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñmilliliter,€and€by€policy,ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€the€TBI€lab€does€notÏð ðquantitateðð€concentrations€below€this€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñlevel.€€Itñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€simply€refers€to€the€result€as€beingÏð ðless€thanðð€.1€micrograms€per€milliliter.€Nevertheless,€Lyttle€assessed€theÏdihydrocodeinone€level€in€order€to€determine€if€it€œexceedñŒñedñŒñ›€the€.1€level€and€foundÏthe€level€to€be€.05,€which€is€less€than€.1€but€about€twice€.024,€the€upper€limit€of€theÏtherapeutic€range.€€Lyttle€testified€that€all€of€these€drugs€are€depressants€that€inÏgeneral€€have€a€sedative€effect.ñ‹ñœñ‹ññ‹ñ׃|×ñ‹ññ‹ñ׃|×ñ‹ñÝ ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€€Ð °1-0 Їà ` àà ¸ àJerry€Main,€another€forensic€specialist€with€the€TBI,€testified€that€heÏconducted€the€analysis€of€the€defendantððs€blood€sample€for€the€purpose€ofÏascertaining€the€presence€of€alcohol.€€Specifically,€he€found€an€alcoholÏconcentration€of€.006€percent.€€The€TBI€considers€results€of€.01€percent€or€less€toÏbe€ð ðnegative.ðð€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€a€jury„out€hearing€to€determine€the€nature€of€her€expertise€and€theÏscope€of€her€testimony,€Jean€Ezell,€the€director€of€the€pharmacy€at€Blount€MemorialÏHospital,€testified€that€drug€level€data€could€not€be€used€to€determine€the€actualÏeffect€that€a€given€drug€level€would€have€on€a€specific€individual,€but€that€she€couldÏopine€generally€as€to€the€effects€of€drug€dosages.€€She€reviewed€the€TBI€drugÏscreen€report€and€opined€that€the€meprobamate€and€dihydrocodeinone€were€atÏlevels€significant€enough€to€cause€some€impairment,€especially€when€one€considersÏthe€likelihood€of€an€ð ðadditiveðð€or€ð ðsynergisticðð€effect€of€combining€the€two€drugs.€ÏBefore€the€jury,€Ezell€confirmed€that€the€three€substances€mentioned€by€Lyttle€wereÏdepressants€and€that€if€she€were€filling€prescriptions€for€these€prescription„onlyÏdrugs,€she€would€affix€labels€warning€the€consumer€of€the€effects€of€sedation€andÏdizziness.€€The€dihydrocodeinone€was€present€in€the€defendantððs€blood€sample€atÏa€level€double€the€ð ðnormal€peak.ðð€€The€carisoprodol€was€present€at€a€level€below€theÏtherapeutic€range,€but€Ezell€explained€that€it€metabolizes€into€meprobamate€andÏthat,€when€drugs€metabolize€into€other€active€drugs€such€as€meprobamate,€theÏmetabolite€itself€may€have€more€effect€than€the€ð ðoriginalðð€drug.€€Furthermore,€sheÏtestified€that€the€TBI€report€revealed€the€presence€of€cocaine,׃p×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€a€central€nervousÐ ð-@), Ðsystem€stimulant,€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñinñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€the€defendantððs€blood€sample€at€a€level€less€than€.1Ïmicrograms€per€milliliter.€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ€Sheñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€explained€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñgenerally€theñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€increased€potency€that€couldÐ °1-0 Ðbe€expected€because€of€the€€additive€and€synergistic€effects€of€combining€the€drugsÏfound€in€the€defendantððs€blood,€but€she€stressed€that€she€could€not€opine€as€to€theÏspecific€effect€of€any€of€these€drugs€on€the€defendant.€Because€there€areÏð ðextensions€of€the€effect€of€the€drug,€.€.€.€it€can€vary€from€patient€to€patient.€€So,€IÏthink€it€would€be€difficult€to€say,€you€know,€a€certain€level€always€causes€a€certainÏeffect.ðð€€Consequently,€she€admitted,€it€would€be€possible€that€the€defendant€€wouldÏbe€able€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle,€despite€the€drugs€revealed€by€the€drug€screen.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€did€not€testify.€€The€only€proof€offered€by€the€defendantÏwas€the€testimony€of€Thomas€Ned€Lee,€Jr.€€The€defendant€visited€Lee€on€theÏevening€of€March€7,€1995.€€Lee€was€working€on€the€bathroom€in€his€house,€and€theÏdefendant€was€with€him€in€that€confined€space.€€Lee€did€not€smell€alcohol€on€theÏdefendant€and€did€not€detect€the€defendant€acting€ð ðfunny.ðð€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ€Heñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€said€the€defendantÏrarely€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñdrank,ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€and€on€that€evening€he€appeared€normal.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBased€upon€the€evidence€as€summarized€above,€the€jury€convictedÏthe€defendant€of€DUI.€€ÌÌÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àà @ à1.€€Sufficiency€of€the€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñEvidenceñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àIt€is€well€established€that€a€jury€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,Ïaccredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€state€and€resolves€all€conflicts€inÏfavor€of€the€theory€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.Ð ,`'* Ð1978);€òòState€v.€Townsendóó,€525€S.W.2d€842,€843€(Tenn.€1975).€€On€appeal,€the€stateÐ ð-@), Ðis€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€orÏlegitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð °1-0 ÐS.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€a€verdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumptionÏof€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal,€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.Ð 09€48 Ð2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973);€òòAnglin€v.€Stateóó,€553€S.W.2d€616,€620€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ° Ð1977),€which€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551Ð à ÐS.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àMost€significantly,€where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,Ïthe€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidenceÏin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.Ð Ð  ÐVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2782€(1979);€Tenn€R.€App.€P.€13.€€See€also,Ð ° ÐòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405€(Tenn.€1983).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€basedÐ à Ðon€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€755€S.W.2d€838,€842Ð pÀ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Circumstantial€evidence€alone€may€be€sufficient€to€convictÏone€of€a€crime.€€òòState€v.€Bolingóó,€840€S.W.2d€944,€947€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð 0€ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€reviewing€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€we€considerÏall€of€the€evidence,€including€any€evidence€which€we€may€conclude€wasÏinadmissible.€òòState€v€Bernard€T.€Andersonóó,€No.€02C01„9710„CR„00394,€slip€op.€atÐ °"  Ð22€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Apr.€23,€1999);€òòState€v.€Longstreetóó,€619€S.W.€2d€97,Ð $à" Ð100„01€(Tenn.€1981).€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDriving€under€the€influence€of€a€drug€or€intoxicant€is€proscribed€byÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„401€which€provides:ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àIt€is€unlawful€for€any€person€to€drive€.€.€.€any€.€.€.€motor€driven€¼à ` àà ¸ àvehicle€on€any€of€the€public€roads€and€highways€.€.€.€or€streets€.€.€.€€¼à ` àà ¸ àwhile€.€.€.€[u]nder€the€influence€of€any€intoxicant,€marijuana,€narcotic€Ìà ` àà ¸ àdrug,€or€drug€producing€stimulating€effects€on€the€central€nervous€Ìà ` àà ¸ àsystem.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ50„10„401(a)ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€(1998).€€It€is€no€defense€to€a€charge€of€drivingÏwhile€under€the€influence€that€the€offender€is€a€lawful€user€of€the€active€drugs.€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€50„10„402€(1998).ÌÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state€shows€that€theÏdefendant€drove€erratically,€had€blood„shot€eyes,€smelled€of€alcohol,€fumbled€withÏhis€wallet,€staggered,€and€failed€to€pass€three€field€sobriety€tests.€€He€admitted€toÏdrinking€beer€and€to€taking€prescription€medications.€€The€presence€of€prescriptionÏmedications€was€confirmed€by€blood€analysis,€and€the€testimony€showed€that€theÏdefendantððs€drug€levels,€especially€when€the€drugs€were€combined,€could€€impairÏthe€defendant€as€a€motor€vehicle€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñoperator.€ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€We€realize€that€the€blood„alcohol€testÏresult€could€have€served€as€a€basis€for€impugning€the€testimony€of€Sgt.€Taylor,€butÏthe€jury€had€the€prerogative€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñto€acceptñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€or€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñrejectñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€Taylorððs€testimony.€€The€verdictÏsuggests€that€they€accredited€his€testimony,€and€this€court€is€neither€permitted€toÏsubstitute€our€judgment€on€credibility€issues€for€that€of€the€trier€of€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñfactñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€nor€to€reweighÏthe€evidence.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThis€court€has€previously€found€sufficient€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñevidenceñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€of€DUI€when€thatÏevidence€was€remarkably€similar€to€the€evidence€now€before€us.€€In€òòState€v.Ð ð@ ÐKenneth€Lee€Abbottóó,€No.€02C01„9311„CC„00263€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€JulyÐ Ð  Ð19,€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ1995),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995),€theñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€police€officer€witnessed€theÐ °"  Ðdefendant€driving€erratically€by€weaving€back€and€forth,€crossing€the€centerline,€andÏmaking€a€wide€turn.€€The€defendant€had€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñblood„shotñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€eyes€and€slurred€speech.€€HeÏfailed€two€field€sobriety€tests.€€òòKenneth€Lee€Abbottóó,€slip€op.€at€2.€€A€blood€testÐ P( #& Ðrevealed€the€presence€of€two€tranquilizer€drugs.€€òòIdóó.€€A€pharmacist€testified€as€to€theÐ 0*€%( Ðeffects€of€the€drugs.€€òòIdóó.€€One€was€within€the€therapeutic€range,€although€the€levelÐ ,`'* Ðof€the€other€was€well€above€the€therapeutic€range.€€òòIdóó.€€He€admitted€that€he€couldÐ ð-@), Ðnot€opine€as€to€the€effects€of€the€drugs€on€the€defendant.€€òòIdóó.€€Abbott€offered€proofÐ Ð/ +. Ðthat€he€appeared€normal€prior€to€the€arrest.€€€òòIdóó.€€This€court€held€that€evidence€wasÐ °1-0 Ðsufficient€based€upon€the€officerððs€testimony€about€the€defendantððs€condition€and€theÏexpertððs€testimony,€including€the€testimony€about€the€drugsðð€ð ðusual€effects.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Ð p5À04 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àDriving€under€the€influence€may€be€shown€by€circumstantial€evidence.€Ð 09€48 ÐòòState€v.€Lawrenceóó,€849€S.W.2d€761,€763€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòState€v.€Corderóó,€854€S.Ð ° ÐW.2d€653,€654€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€proof€in€the€present€case€wasÏsufficient€to€allow€a€rational€jury€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€basedÏupon€circumstantial€evidence,€that€the€defendant€was€driving€under€the€influence.ÌÌÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àà @ à2.€€Failure€to€Establish€Chain€of€Custody€of€Blood€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñSampleñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÌÓkEÓà ` àà ¸ àñ‹ñœñ‹ñSergeantñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€Taylor€obtained€the€samples€from€the€nurse€who€drew€theÏblood€€from€the€defendant€in€Taylorððs€presence€at€the€hospital.€€Taylor€thenÏdelivered€the€samples€to€the€police€departmentððs€evidence€custodian.€€Although€theÏdefendant€objected€when€Taylor€testified€that€the€samples€were€sent€to€the€TBIÏlaboratory,€the€trial€court€allowed€Taylor€to€testify€that€the€custodian€sends€theÏsamples€to€the€lab.€€The€evidence€custodian€did€not€testify,€and€no€one€testified€thatÏthe€samples€brought€in€by€Taylor€were€the€same€ones€sent€to€and€received€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñfromñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€theÏlab.€Nevertheless,€the€defendant€failed€to€object€when€the€lab€analysis€reports€wereÏadmitted€into€evidence.€€The€defendant€asks€that€the€failure€to€require€the€state€toÏestablish€a€chain€of€custody€be€reviewed€as€plain€error.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àHowever,€the€state€has€correctly€pointed€out€that€this€issue€was€notÏraised€in€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€AppellateÏProcedure€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ3(e)ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€requires€that€in€a€case€tried€by€a€jury€such€issues€must€be€includedÏin€the€motion€for€new€trial,€ð ðotherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived.ðð€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ3(e).ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€Under€all€of€the€circumstances,€this€is€a€proper€case€in€which€toÏhold€that€the€issue€is€waived€under€Rule€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ3(e),ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€and€we€so€hold.€ÌÓ  ÓÌà @` àà @¸ à3.€€The€Trial€Court€Erred€in€Allowing€Evidence€of€the€Presence€ofÌà @` àà @¸ àà @ àDrugs€in€the€Defendantððs€Blood€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñSampleñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÌÓØKÓà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€issue€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€(1)€inÏadmitting€the€TBI€drug„screen€report€and€testimony€concerning€the€presence€ofÐ 09€48 Ðdrugs€in€the€defendantððs€blood€and€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ(2)ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€in€allowing€testimony€about€the€drugs€withoutÏinterpretation€of€the€data€and€about€the€import€of€the€drugs.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€we€address€the€issue€of€admitting€the€report€and€LyttleððsÏtestimony€which€showed€the€presence€of€various€drugs.€€Essentially€the€defendantÏargues€that€such€evidence€was€irrelevant,€was€prejudicial,€and€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñdidñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€not€meet€theÏapplicable€test€for€the€admissibility€of€scientific€or€technical€evidence.€€TheÏdefendant€maintains€that€in€the€absence€of€testimony€about€ð ðthe€significance€of€theÏdrug€levels,€the€evidence€of€drugs€in€the€lab€report€was€more€prejudicial€thanÏprobative.ðð€€€By€ð ðsignificance€of€the€drug€levels,ðð€the€defendant€ñ‹ñœ›ñ‹ñ€refers€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñto€theñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€effectÏof€the€drugs€ð ðon€Defendantððs€or€any€other€personððs€ability€to€perform€physical€tasks.ðð€ÏHe€also€complains€that€the€evidence€of€the€presence€of€dihydrocodeinone€and€theÏcocaine€substances€was€not€supported€as€scientific€evidence€because€the€levels€ofÏthese€drugs€were€too€low€to€be€quantified.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àEvidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€ofÏany€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€orÏless€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€IrrelevantÏevidence€is€inadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€€ð ðAlthough€relevant,€evidence€mayÏbe€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€ofÏundue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñTheñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€issue€of€allowing€expert€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñevidence€is€œññmore›€ññrelated›€to€the€questionÏof€relevance.ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€€An€expert€may€testify€and€give€his€or€her€opinion€on€facts€in€issue€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñifñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÏ(1)€the€expert€is€ð ðqualified€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€educationððÏand€(2)€the€expertððs€ð ðscientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€willÏsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€factÏin€issue.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€ÌÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àAfter€jury„out€hearings,€the€trial€court€accepted€both€Lyttle€and€EzellÏas€expert€witnesses.€€It€is€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€to€allow€expert€testimony.€Ï€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€675€S.W.2d€405,€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ411„412ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€(Tenn.€1983).€€Lyttle€testified€to€theÐ pÀ Ðlevels€of€the€various€drugs€in€the€defendantððs€blood€and€what€the€general€effects€onÏthe€central€nervous€system€were.€€He€testified€that€carisoprodol€was€present€at€aÏlevel€that€fell€well€within€the€therapeutic€range€and€that€dihydrocodenione€wasÏpresent€at€a€level€that€was€twice€the€maximum€therapeutic€dosage.€€He€testifiedÏwithout€contradiction€that€he€was€qualified€to€perform€and€did€perform€the€tests€toÏdetermine€the€drug€levels.€€We€conclude€that€the€proof€of€the€drug€levels€asÏpresented€through€the€report€and€the€oral€testimony€of€Lyttle€was€properly€admitted.€ÏIt€was€relevant,€not€unduly€prejudicial,€and€was€properly€offered€as€expert€testimonyÏunder€evidence€rule€702.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€we€review€the€defendantððs€complaint€that€the€testimony€about€Ïthe€import€of€the€drugs€and€the€fact€that€the€drug€levels,€although€scientific€orÏtechnical€in€nature,€were€not€interpreted€for€the€jury.€€First€we€consider€testimonyÏabout€the€three€prescription€drugs,€carispodrodal,€meprobamate,€andÏdihydrocodeinone,€and€then€we€will€consider€the€non„prescription,€but€illicit,€cocaineÏsubstances,€cocaine€and€benzoylecogonine.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòKenneth€Lee€Abbottóó,€this€court€considered€the€expert€testimony€of€Ð 0*€%( Ðthe€ð ðusual€effectsðð€of€the€drugs€found€in€Abbottððs€blood€in€determining€that€all€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€to€support€his€DUI€conviction.€€òòKenneth€Lee€Abbottóó,€slip€op.Ð ð-@), Ðat€2.€€Even€though€the€òòKenneth€Lee€Abbottóó€court€was€not€dealing€with€anÐ Ð/ +. Ðñ‹ñœñ‹ñadmissibilityñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€issue,€its€review€of€the€ð ðusual€effectsðð€evidence€in€assessing€theÏsufficiency€of€the€proof€belied€no€concern€for€the€probative€value€of€testimony€aboutÏthe€general€effects€of€drug€levels€on€normal€persons,€the€ð ðusual€effects.ðð€€In€theÏpresent€case,€the€state€offered€ample€evidence€of€the€usual€effects€of€the€drugs.€ÏThis€evidence€made€it€more€probable€ð ðthan€it€would€be€without€the€evidenceðð€thatÐ 09€48 Ðthe€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€substances€enumerated€in€code€sectionÏ50„10„401.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€The€relevance€of€the€evidence€was€notÐ à Ðoutweighed€by€any€unfair€prejudice€or€any€other€factor€listed€in€Rule€403.€€Moreover,ÏLyttle€and€Ezell€were€expert€witnesses€by€reason€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñoñ‹ñ›œñ‹ñfñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€knowledge,€experience,Ïtraining,€and€education,€and€they€were€qualified€to€give€their€testimony,€includingÏopinions,€regarding€their€scientific€or€specialized€knowledge€about€the€usual€effectsÏof€the€drugs.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€Ezell€gave€cogent€testimony€about€theÐ ð@  Ðeffects€of€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñwhichñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€prescription€drugs€œñŽñwhich›€ñŽñwere›€within€and€which€exceeded€the€therapeuticÏrange.€€She€testified€about€the€likelihood€of€additive€or€synergistic€effects€ofÏcombining€the€drugs.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€this€evidence€wasÏadmissible.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that€this€courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€Jim€Smithóó,Ð 0€ ÐNo.€03C01„9312„CR„00398€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€11,€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñ1994),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.Ð ` Ðòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994)ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€requires€reversal€of€these€evidentiary€rulings€of€the€trial€court.€Ð ð@ ÐIn€òòJim€Smithóó,€the€defendant€€was€on€trial€for€murder€and€wished€to€show€that€theÐ Ð  Ðòòvictimððsóó€urine€tested€positive€for€cocaine€metabolites€in€order€to€support€theÐ °"  Ðdefendantððs€mutual€combat€defense.€€The€trial€court€rejected€Smithððs€proffer€of€theÏcocaine€evidence€because€the€pathologist€who€performed€the€drug€screen€testifiedÏthat€the€screen€was€performed€for€treatment€purposes€and€would€ð ðalways€be€sentÏoff€for€a€confirmatory€study€before€it€was€ever€reported€as€positive.ðð€€TheÏconfirmatory€study€was€not€performed.€€òòIdóó.€at€3.€€The€pathologist€testified€thatÐ ,`'* Ðconfirmation€is€ð ðalways€requiredðð€because€of€the€possibility€that€ð ðother€medicationsÏcould€cross„react€with€the€screening€test€and€yield€false€positive€results.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€TheÐ Ð/ +. Ðtrial€court€excluded€the€test€results€on€the€basis€of€unreliability.€€In€affirming€theÏexclusion€of€this€evidence,€this€court€commented€that€the€record€lacked€anyÏevidence€to€indicate€ð ðwhen€the€drug€was€ingested€or€when€the€individual€may€haveÏbeen€under€the€drugððs€influenceðð€and€that€ð ða€trace€of€cocaine€may€be€irrelevant€andÏthus€inadmissible.ðð€€The€òòSmithóó€court€cited€two€Florida€cases,€òòState€v.€McClainóó,€525Ð 09€48 Ðñ‹ñœñ‹ñSo.€2dñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€420€(Fla.€1988),€and€òòWest€v.€Stateóó,€553€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñSo.€2dñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€254€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.Ð ° Ð1989),€which€turned€upon€the€exclusion€of€evidence€of€ð ðtraceðð€amounts€of€cocaineÏin€the€blood€of€the€defendants€who€were€being€tried€for€œññalcoholññññsubstanceññ„related›€vehicularÏhomicides.€òòÐ P   ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àSmithóó€is€distinguishable€from€the€case€at€bar€in€two€respects.€€First,€theÐ `  Ðtestimony€about€two€of€the€prescription€drugs,€meprobamate€and€dihydrocodonione,Ïshowed€that€these€substances€were€present€in€significant€amounts.€€We€have€foundÏno€holding€of€this€court€which€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñrequireñ‹ñ›œñ‹ñsñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€expert€proof€about€the€timing€of€drugÏingestion€as€related€to€the€drugððs€influence€and€the€driving€of€a€vehicle€where€theÏdrugs€were€present€in€significant€amounts€according€to€expert€testimony.€€Second,Ïunlike€the€evidence€proffered€by€the€defendant€in€òòSmithóó,€the€admissibility€ofÐ P  Ðevidence€in€the€present€case€is€mandated€by€statute.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„Ð 0€ Ð10„410(d)€(1997)€(ð ðThe€certification€[attested€by€the€TBI]€.€.€.€shall€.€.€.€be€admissibleÏin€any€court,€in€any€criminal€proceeding,€as€evidence€of€the€facts€therein€stated,€andÏof€the€results€of€such€tests.€.€.€.€ð ð).€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€argument€based€on€òòSmithóó€concerning€the€evidenceÐ $à" Ðof€cocaine€is€more€in€point.€€After€hearing€the€jury„out€proffer€of€Lyttleððs€testimony,Ïthe€trial€court€initially€excluded€any€reference€to€the€cocaine€substances€until€ð ðsomeÏadditional€testimony€comes€out€on€it.ðð€€However,€in€the€jury„out€proffer€of€EzellððsÏtestimony€she€testified€that€although€she€was€not€an€expert€on€ð ðillicit€substances,ððÏshe€was€familiar€with€the€effects€of€cocaine,€based€upon€her€educational€œtrainingñ‘ñ,ñ‘ñ›Ïand€her€knowledge€of€the€ð ðeffects€of€cocaine€after€ingestion€in€the€human€body€orÏthe€central€nervous€system.ðð€€She€opined€that€the€cocaine€metabolite,Ïbenzoylecgonine,€was€present€at€a€level€to€have€some€effect€on€a€person.€€The€testÏlevel€of€1456€nanograms€per€milliliter€exceeded€the€peak€therapeutic€level€of€923Ïnanograms€per€milliliter.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€defendantððs€objection€toÏdisallow€Ezellððs€testimony€and€determined€that€she€could€testify€about€the€finding€ofÐ 09€48 Ðcocaine€and€a€cocaine€metabolite,€benzolecgonine,€in€the€lab€report.€€Before€theÏjury,€Ezell€testified€that€cocaine€is€a€central€nervous€system€stimulant€that€can€blockÏnerve€impulses€and€constrict€blood€vessels€with€a€typical€result€of€stimulation€andÏhyperactivity.€€She€acknowledged€that€the€TBI€lab€report€showed€that€cocaine€wasÏpresent€at€a€level€of€less€than€.1€micrograms€per€milliliter€and€that€it€did€not€specifyÏthe€precise€amount€of€cocaine.€€Beyond€these€statements,€no€other€proof€wasÏoffered€before€the€jury€about€either€the€cocaine€or€the€level€of€cocaine€metabolite.Ìà ` àÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€proffer€showed€that€the€level€of€cocaine€was€less€than€.1€MG/MLÏand€that€the€exact€level€was€not€determined.€€We€agree€with€the€defendant€that€thisÏinformation€òòaloneóó€would€have€been€an€insufficient€basis€for€an€expert€concludingÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€presence€of€cocaine€was€meaningful€in€this€DUI€case.€€However,€a€cocaineÏmetabolite,€benzolecgonine,€was€present€at€a€meaningful€level€and€makes€theÏchemical€findings€as€to€both€substances€relevant.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñitsñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÏdiscretion€in€allowing€testimony€about€these€two€substances.€€The€presence€of€theÏcocaine€in€combined€form€with€a€significant€level€of€metabolite€made€it€moreÏprobable€that€the€defendant€was€driving€under€the€influence.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.Ð °"  Ð401.€€Although€cocaine€was€the€only€illicit€drug€found€in€the€lab€report,€the€prejudiceÏthat€may€have€resulted€from€the€reference€to€cocaine€was€properly€viewed€as€notÏoutweighing€the€probative€value.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.Ð P( #& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àOf€course,€Ezellððs€testimony€before€the€jury€did€not€track€her€profferedÏtestimony.€€Before€the€jury,€the€state€failed€to€elicit€some€of€the€specific€information€Ïon€the€level€and€the€effect€of€the€cocaine€metabolite€that€Ezell€imparted€during€herÏproffer.€€The€result€was€the€jury€heard€only€that€the€report€showed€the€presence€ofÏcocaine€at€a€level€of€ð ðless€thanðð€.1€micrograms€per€milliliter,€without€the€auxiliaryÏinformation€of€the€metabolite€level€which€boosted€the€relevancy€value€of€theÏñ‹ñœñ‹ññ‹ñœñ‹ñunquantifiedñ‹ñ›ñ‹ññ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€level€of€unmetabolized€cocaine.€€It€may€have€been€error€to€allow€thisÏtestimony€in€this€incomplete€form;€however,€the€defendant€did€not€object,€move€toÐ 09€48 Ðstrike€or€for€a€mistrial,€nor€ask€for€curative€instructions.€€ð ð[ñ‹ñœñ‹ññ‹ñœñ‹ñR]eliefñ‹ñ›ñ‹ññ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€may€not€be€grantedÏin€contravention€of€the€trier€of€fact.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€To€the€extent€that€theÏdefendantððs€claim€of€error€is€addressed€to€the€actual€testimony€of€Ezell,€the€claimÏhas€been€waived.€€Furthermore,€we€view€as€harmless€any€error€in€allowing€EzellððsÏtestimony€to€be€received€without€curative€action.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.Ð 0 € ÐR.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€Had€the€cocaine€at€less€than€.1€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñmicrogram€per€milliliterñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€been€theÏonly€cocaine€substance€found,€the€evidence€of€it€might€well€have€been€irrelevantÏunder€evidence€Rule€401€or€prohibitively€prejudicial€under€Rule€403,€and€yet,€thisÏis€essentially€the€only€evidence€about€the€level€of€cocaine€that€the€jury€heard.€TheÏirony€is€that€the€full€story€about€the€cocaine€„„€the€level€of€the€metabolite€which€weÏhave€deemed€admissible€„„€was€more€cogent,€specific€and€damaging€to€theÏdefendant€than€the€evidence€of€unmetabolized€cocaine€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñabout€which€Ezell€testified.ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€ÏIndeed,€given€the€irony,€the€defendant€may€well€have€decided€not€to€object€or€seekÏcurative€instructions€for€fear€that€testimony€about€the€œ14ñ’ñ5ñ’ñ6›€ñ‹ñœñ‹ññ‹ñœñ‹ñnanogramsñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€per€milliliterñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÏof€cocaine€metabolite€would€emerge.€€Moreover,€any€retrial€of€the€case€would€onlyÏresult€in€admitting€cocaine€evidence€that€would€be€more€damaging€than€what€wasÏadmitted€below.€€Under€these€circumstances,€any€error€that€can€be€ascribed€to€theÏuse€of€Ezellððs€testimony€was€harmless.ÌÌÓ  Ó4.€Horizontal€Gaze€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñNystagmusñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñEvidenceñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àThe€state€concedes€that€it€did€not€properly€qualify€Sgt.€Taylor€as€anÏexpert€on€the€HGN€test€and€that€the€HGN€test€results€were€inadmissible€in€light€ofÏour€supreme€courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€Murphyóó,€953€S.W.2d€200€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð ð-@), ÐHowever,€the€state€argues€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ð Ð/ +. ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThis€court€has€upheld€DUI€convictions€despite€the€use€of€inadmissibleÏevidence€when€the€admissible€evidence€overwhelmingly€supported€a€finding€of€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñguilt.ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€ÏòòSeeóóòòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Mark€ñ‹ñœñ‹ññ‹ñœñ‹ñBatemanñ‹ñ›ñ‹ññ‹ñ›ñ‹ñóó,€No.€ñ‹ñœñ‹ññ‹ñœñ‹ñ01C01ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ññ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ„9608„CC„00377,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.Ð P7 26 ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€17,€1997)€(trial€judge€in€bench€trial€affirmatively€foundÐ 09€48 Ðthat€evidence€independent€of€the€òòSensingóó„deficient€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñintoximeterñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€results€supportedÐ ° ÐDUI€conviction);€òòState€v.€ñ‹ñœñ‹ññ‹ñœñ‹ñGreeneñ‹ñ›ñ‹ññ‹ñ›ñ‹ñóó,€929€S.W.2d€376,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)Ð à Ð(ð ðany€arguableðð€error€in€admitting€HGN€proof€harmless€in€light€of€other€proof,Ïincluding€.22€percent€blood€alcohol€test€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñresult)ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ññ‹ñœñ‹ñ.€€ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñòòButóóñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€òòseeóóòòState€v.€James€DaleÐ P   ÐGrindstaffóó,€No.€03C01„9704„CR„00139€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.€23,€1998).€Ð 0 € ÐIn€the€present€case,€the€other€proof€of€driving€while€under€the€influence€was€cogentÏand€consisted€of€two€field€sobriety€test€results,€the€observations€of€a€trained€officer,Ïand€the€results€of€chemical€tests.€€Given€the€overwhelming€nature€of€the€totalÏevidence,€we€hold€that€the€erroneous€use€of€the€HGN€test€results€was€harmless.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€reaching€this€conclusion,€we€have€reviewed€òòJames€Dale€Grindstaffóó,Ð pÀ Ða€case€in€which€this€court€reversed€a€DUI€conviction€because,€in€part,€òòMurphyóó„Ð P  Ðdeficient€evidence€of€the€results€of€the€HGN€test€was€admitted.€€òòJames€DaleÐ 0€ ÐGrindstaffóó,€slip€op.€at€7.€€However,€in€addition€to€the€òòMurphyóó€error,€the€trial€court€inÐ ` ÐòòJames€Dale€Grindstaffóó€also€erroneously€admitted€evidence€in€violation€of€the€òòStateÐ ð@ Ðv.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€412€(Tenn.€1992),€requirement€that€a€DUI€arrestee€must€beÐ Ð  Ðobserved€for€twenty€minutes€prior€to€an€intoximeter€test€as€a€prerequisite€for€makingÏthe€intoximeter€test€results€admissible.€€òòJames€Dale€Grindstaffóó,€slip€op.€at€5„6.€€EvenÐ $à" Ðthough€the€arresting€officer€testified€that€Grindstaff€had€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñblood„shotñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€eyes,€slurredÏspeech,€an€alcohol€odor,€and€ð ðperformed€poorly€on€.€.€.€two€field€sobriety€testsÏbesidesðð€the€HGN€test,€there€was€evidence€that€Grindstaffððs€speech€impediment,€aÏleg€injury,€fatigue,€and€limited€education€may€have€contributed€to€some€of€the€fieldÏobservations€and€test€results.€€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñòòJames€Dale€Grindstaffóó,ñ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€slip€op.€at€6.€€Significantly,€theÐ ð-@), Ðofficer€did€not€observe€Grindstaffððs€vehicle€ð ðweaving,€crossing€a€line,ðð€or€otherwiseÏbeing€driven€erratically.€€òòIdóó.€€Given€the€ð ðfairly€balancedðð€evidence€on€the€issue€ofÐ °1-0 Ðintoxication€without€the€HGN€and€intoximeter€test€results,€this€court€held€that€theÏð ðcumulative€effectðð€of€the€errors€in€admitting€the€HGN€and€intoximeter€tests€resultsÏmore€probably€than€not€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñaffectñ‰ñedñ‰ññ‹ñ›ñ‹ñ€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€òòIdóó.Ð P7 26 ÐÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àòòJames€Dale€Grindstaffóó€is€distinguishable€from€the€present€case.€€Here,Ð ° Ðthe€officer€witnessed€the€defendant€driving€erratically,€and€the€state€presentedÏsubstantial€proof€that€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€prescriptionÏmedications.€€Furthermore,€we€have€found€no€other€operable€error€which,€whenÏcombined€with€the€HGN€error,€would€yield€a€cumulative€effect.€€These€factors,Ïcombined€with€the€results€of€two€field€sobriety€tests€other€than€the€HGN€test€and€theÏofficerððs€testimony€about€palpable€indicators€of€intoxication€observed€in€theÏdefendantððs€behavior,€support€our€conclusion€that€the€erroneous€use€of€the€HGNÏtest€results€was€harmless.ÌÌÓ  Ó5.€€ñ‹ñœñ‹ñConclusionñŠñ.ñŠññ‹ñ›ñ‹ñÌÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àWe€conclude€that€no€reversible€error€was€committed€below.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGEÌÌà ` àà ¸ àÌ______________________________ÌALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE